Everything needs energy to exist, if you have something at zero kelvin it ceases to exist. So to be below Kelvin, i would find that rather extraodinary. Although if you found a source i'd be interested in reading it

Not exactly sure how they did it, but I think it was an imaginary temperature. Like, they were able to induce an electron to leave its place within a substance, and the resulting hole has a small proportion of the temperature, but since it's a hole and not a real particle, its properties are considered the opposite of those of the particle, hence the negative temperature. Or something like that.

I just graduated with a Bachelor's in Cellular Biology and a minor in Public Health. I was also just accepted into Pharmacy school, so I think I would know my physics and my chemistry. Temperature is a measure of the amount of energy a substance has, measured by the movement of particles.

Oh, and **** you for deleting your account for fear of being wrong. Pussy.

That's not possible. The author is misusing terms to claim "negative" temperature in Kelvin.

0K (Zero Kelvin) is ABSOLUTE ZERO. There is no heat energy whatsoever. You cannot have negative quantities of anything, Kelving is a measure of heat energy. Zero kelvin means that the molecules are not moving at all, if there truly was negative degrees kelvin, that would mean negative energy, which would mean the Law of Conservation has been disproven, which would cause probably the biggest scientifical ********* since the heliocentric theorey.

Fahrenheit was created based on the human body. But, when it was created, the measurements were off by a couple of degrees. This is why the medical field is really the only field to still use Fahrenheit, at least in America.

It's not exponential in shape. The difference between two degrees in Fahrenheit is smaller than the difference between two degrees in Celsius. So while they are two linear lines, they are not parallel and must intersect at a point.